November 2, 2009

WALLACE: You have now taken to calling Mr. Obama "the man-child president."

RUSH: Right.

WALLACE: What does that mean?

RUSH: Just -- he's (inaudible) he's a child. I think he's -- he's got a -- a five-minute career. He was in the Senate for 150 days. He was a community organizer in Chicago for however number of years. He really has no experience running anything. He's very young. I think he's got an out-of-this-world ego. He's very narcissistic. And he's able to focus all attention on him all the time. That -- that description is simply a way to cut through the noise and say he's immature, inexperienced, in over his head.

***

WALLACE: Sarah Palin -- you say that you admire her backbone. Do you really think she's ready to be president?

RUSH: Well, yes, I do. See, I am a -- one thing I do not do is follow conventional wisdom, and the conventional wisdom of Sarah Palin is she's not smart enough, she needs to bone up on the issues, she's a little unsophisticated, she -- Alaska, where's that? -- doesn't have the pedigree. I've seen -- she's the only thing that provided any kind of a spark for the Republican Party. This is not an endorsement, but I do have profound respect for Sarah Palin. There are not very many politicians who have been through what she's through -- been put through and still able to smile and be ebullient and upbeat. I mean, this woman, I think, is pretty tough.

Yes. I think the VP slot for her would have been a good place for on the job training for the big boy chair down the road. But her bailing on the Gov job, regardless of the ethics lawsuits, pretty much tells me she isn't reliable.

I think after 4 years of Obama/Biden the nation will finally be ready to elect an adult for President.

Palin has definitely been tested in ways that Obama hasn't (the reverse, that his mixed heritage and international upbringing posed challenges and insights that Palin can't match is probably also true).

Neither of them have an "ideal" amount of experience for the Presidency. But what really constitutes "ideal"?

Unlike Obama, Palin has actual executive experience, albeit a short number of years. Actually, the plain disaster that Obama has shaped up to be has cooled my enthusiasm for the relatively young and inexperienced Palin. In fact, Obama is starting to make Mitt Romney look real good.

Palin has definitely been tested in ways that Obama hasn't (the reverse, that his mixed heritage and international upbringing posed challenges and insights that Palin can't match is probably also true).

It's Rush's job to criticize everything Obama says or does. It's his bread and butter. That's all well and good, but taking anything he says seriously is like judging whether to buy a car solely on the basis of car commercials. There is somewhat of a conflict of interest.

Hasn't Sarah Palin by now proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that she's a huge hack?

Palin has the wisdom to realize that she (nor the government) doesn't know everything. Thus, her program is to have government do is little as possible. In contrast, Obama has no such wisdom. Obama believes that he can solve all our porblems. In the Obama world, he messes up all our lives and everything goes to hell collectively. In the Palin world, everyone is free to succeed or fail on their own merits.

I'm still waiting for him to finally takes ownership of the job and stop blaming the previous administration. I don't know of too many private sector jobs where I can continue to blame the fuckups of my predecessor a year later before my employer boots me out the door.

Well, one way in which she's proved herself in the same way as Obama has is that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

I'm tempted to say I might prefer a Palin presidency to Obama's, as her rank ignorance and incompetence might make her less dangerous than Obama, who knows what he's doing. (I don't think he's dangerous for any mythical "socialistfascism" he's alleged by the nutjobs and nitwits to be perpetrating on America.) But then I remember Bush. She would have a gang of malevolent Washington thugs--the Cheneys and the Roves and the like--running things while she acted as the front just as Bush did, and that would be very very dangerous indeed.

No, I don't detect a contradiction in Limbaugh's position. He's saying that President Obama is immature politically because he's never run anything and he's never had to deal seriously with opposition or with criticism. He also says that Sarah Palin has run something (particularly in an executive capacity) and has indeed dealt seriously with opposition (from her own party) and with criticism (much of it malicious, unfair, and untrue.) As a result, he deems one worthy of the presidency, the other not.

Now, we commenters may agree or disagree with his characterizations of these two political figures. But the characterizations aren't contradictory, and if the way you make them contradictory is by making Limbaugh say something he doesn't believe, that's cheating.

She would have a gang of malevolent Washington thugs--the Cheneys and the Roves and the like--running things while she acted as the front just as Bush did, and that would be very very dangerous indeed.

Yes indeed. I know I was overcome with rapture when Bush left office and all my rights and personal liberties were restored. When I figure out which ones those were I'll get back to you.

Obama defined himself as the post-partisan pragmatist. Unfortunately, the reality we've all watched since January tells a different tale, and so others are stepping up to offer their own definitions. McCain offered 'The One,' a play on the messianic aspect of O's campaign. More recently it was the 'ditherer-in-chief.' This week it's the 'man-child.'

The vacuum created by the dissonance between O's rhetoric and his reality gives all of the alternative definitions of O a chance to take hold.

We're getting to the point where the Dem leaning comics will start in on O big time. The good ones, e.g. Stewart and (sometimes) the SNL crowd can hone in on an aspect of his persona and to turn it into a vicious, impossible-to-shake caricature. It happened to Palin, Cheney, Bush and even Clinton, and it's bound to happen to O.

When it does, it won't be a good thing for Team O. And it will really mark the point where O's cultural status is reduced from iconic to mere politician.

You'll note I didn't say the authoritarian precedents established by Bush's thugs had been rescinded or in any way mitigated by Obama. This is one of the reasons he's dangerous...he's continuing the rape of the Contstitution that began under his predecessors.

It is fun to see the reactions to Palin's power to get votes. Everybody has a different reason to disqualify her. The experience meme ties into the Alaska Government doesn't count at all since we were not hearing about her until last year. That reveals a weak minded commenter indeed. The she quit meme ties into her being a wishy-washy woman. That reveals a male centered traditional attitude. The trouble with that tradition today is that a white woman is needed to win enough of the independent votes that simply will not elect a traditional white male candidate over a Smiling First Black President. The last thing they all ignore, but Rush sees clearly is that Palin's courage is her ticket to ride. Think Harry Truman.

Consistency is a favorite of weblog writers. Doesn't mean a thing to me.

Obama is the affirmative action candidate. Palin is the self-made candidate.

Obama is the star of the quota system, and the hope of all those who believe that if we are really nice to blacks, pray for peace and light incense candles the world will become Utopia.

Palin represents people who still believe that working with your hands at a hard job, having a bunch of children and having fixed ethical principles means something.

The notion that intellectual argument about selected issues is the crux of politics... well, that appeals to intellectuals... but, really not to the general electorate.

I think Palin is all the Republicans have got. She's actually a conservative. She will stand up for conservative values.

In the last election, the Republicans decided to nominate a non-Republican, John McCain, who decided that he only wanted to be president if he didn't have to attack Obama's radical racist past. McCain couldn't stomach being called a "racist," so he pretty much threw the election.

I think that Palin will be able to weather the inevitable "racist" hysteria that the Democrats will throw at her.

I'm white, male and hetero. I don't give a fuck about consistency. What I want is a candidate who represents my self-interest. That is also what the electorate wants. Palin might represent my "racist, sexist, homophobic, gun clinging, bible clutching" self-interest.

Look, if white people (not the whiter ones, but the regular ones) are going to have a candidate who effectively represents their self-interest, that candidate will have to listen to all the "bigot" accusations from the idiot mob and respond, essentially, "Fuck You!"

The issue here is who gets their hands on the goodies. McCain didn't give a shit about standing up for his own constituency. Last Republican who did was Reagan.

I'm posting again because I want to kill this stupid discussion about consistency and intellectualism.

Obama is governing for one, and only one purpose: he's dealing out the swag to his constituency. He's paying off his campaign contritubors, enforcing the racial and sexual quota systems with a vengeance, creating a system of welfare payoffs that will entrench the Democratic Party in the future, etc.

This is what politics is about.

So stop this stupid intellectual debate about consistence and whether the president knows how to find Russia on a map.

The she quit meme ties into her being a wishy-washy woman. That reveals a male centered traditional attitude.

Anyone that is elected to an office, and then doesn't serve out the term, deserves ridicule. (The American public might make an exception for health reasons, or being promoted) Especially when the going-away speech is incoherent rambling.

Why any one of you still listens to Rush is beyond me. He is such a self serving sycophant for the right it is crazy. Just the thought of him blustering and buffoonering(not a word) on national tv makes me want to puke. And on Fox, quelle surprise! Soft ball questions, no challenges, like an ad for the neocons.

Gag.

Obama, not so good, Palin a disaster.

Quite honestly, Mayor Villarigosa in Los Angeles has more real experience governing than either Obam or Palin. Los Angeles county is about 4 times the size of the state of Alaska. And she was mayor of a town that has a population less than the attendance of 1 Los Angeles are high school.

Let's see... wealthy, childless bachelor who lives alone in a mansion with his toys and goes on extended golf vacations is calling a husband and father of two with the world's most difficult job a "man-child."

Madison Man...I love the male centered traditional attitude. And Sarah is a woman with a woman's emotions. But she is electable and she is willing to lead in a fight to the finish, which is something Pawlenty and Romney don't show because it is the old traditional male role that shames the under 40 voters , while an attractive white female with traditional values inspires them. Atlanta will elect its first white Mayor since 1972 tomorow. She can win since she is not an old style White Male running against Black candidates. It's a less than ideal world, but adjusting to changes in cicumstances in a competitive winner take all system IS intelligence pe se. Gutsy women are the needed winning Reagan conservative candidates these days.

Sarah Palin's head is on straight. That is OVERWHELMINGLY the most important thing to look for in a president. So no, no contradiction detected at all.

She is having a public feud with a dumb jock who just dropped out of high school a year ago. I'm guessing that your description of having a head on straight involves idealogy and not average intelligence.

Invisible Man... Todd what's his name will never be invisible because linking him to Palin is the his raison d'etre for the Magazines and the Nets. He is so stupid and so venal...and he shall be forever linked to the ImPaling, greedy, beauty queen, Alaska backwoods, quitter, wolf killer, pro-pollution driller, unelectable, Christian believer, Stalinist. I only pity the harm this is doing to Todd's reputation

If toughness and the ability to keep your head while all around you are losing theirs were the only qualifications for the presidency -- and they're on the list to be sure -- Palin would be more qualified than Obama.

But her intellectual IQ isn't nearly as high as her emotional IQ. Her book-larnin' is deficient. She has steeped herself in the issues you'd need to know to run a small state like Alaska with basically three economic engines, energy, fish and tourism. But she still seems to have no sense of the world outside that realm. Her instincts on economic issues seem pretty good, but hitting a ten-strike with the death-panels remark does not equate to the ability to manage the incredibly complex knot of health care issues. And as for foreign policy -- I see no evidence she would survive an interview with Jay Leno much less Charles Gibson.

If Sarah Palin really wants to be president, her target should be 2020. She'll still be young enough, but she needs at least a decade of immersion in a world she has thus far only glimpsed. She should go to Harvard. She should run a foundation. She should serve a term or two in Congress. She should find some reason to live in China for a year. She just needs so much more to be considered. I don't hate her at all, but please, if we've learned anything about her in the past year, it's that she's not even close to being presidential material.

fls wrote: If she only weren't so mean, petty, and vindictive, her ignorance would not bother me so much.

Lake Wobegon effect elitism rears its ugly head once more.

As for contradictions, I doubt Limbaugh is basing his opinion on comparative experience. Limbaugh, like the rest of us, is looking for character -- i.e., moral and ethical strength. Palin seems to have it. Obama clearly does not. That is why the leftists despise her.

Madison Man...When watching football the only bad thing a Coach can do is not to make halftime adjustments to his game plan. In the competitive world the one quitting a bad strategy for a good strategy first usually wins. That jewell of advice is why the Japanese Empire lost to the USMC commanders who, unlike the Japanese, were allowed to think and adjust their forces and tactics before the battles were lost.

“CBS should be ashamed for continually providing a forum to propagate lies. Consider the source of the most recent attention-getting lies -- those who would sell their body for money reflect a desperate need for attention and are likely to say and do anything for even more attention,” Palin says in the statement.

Both Obama and Palin are basketball players by training and instinct. I believe that is why the President and his media whores fear Palin. They know what a realy good Point Guard coming in can do to create offense where there was none when they were are on the bench.

Hasn't Sarah Palin by now proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that she's a huge hack?

A very effective governor of Alaska, which scared the pants off people like you.

Robert Cook said...

"(Palin) has proven herself in ways Obama cannot begin to imagine."

I'm tempted to say I might prefer a Palin presidency to Obama's, as her rank ignorance and incompetence might make her less dangerous than Obama, who knows what he's doing.

Care to give us a few examples of all this ignorance and incompetence - other than quotes from Tina Fey routines?

In any case, history may have something more important in store for Miss Sarah. How about National Republican Chairwoman, the one who drove the RINOs out and restored the GOP as the true opposition to the Soviet Democrats?

I'm talking about the way St. Patrick did with the snakes in Ireland and Hercules cleaning out the Augean stables. Get rid of the corruption on a national scale. This seems to be her calling and where she's going in her life.

No contradiction on the experience. However, while Rush criticizes Obama for being 'able to focus all attention on him all the time', that is certainly an area where Palin is quite gifted. ( Rush is pretty good at that himself. )

[Limbaugh} He also says that Sarah Palin has run something (particularly in an executive capacity)

How valuable is Limbaugh's assessment when the biggest thing he's run is his mouth? Look at what business executive Carly Fiorina thought of her executive ability -- she doesn't think Palin could run even Hewlett-Packard. But watch her backpedal here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnBXXssj0KY&NR=1&feature=fvwp

I agree that Sarah Palin has good qualities, but stick-to-itiveness?

Pulling out of a situation when it becomes uncomfortable for her is part of a lifelong pattern. Palin spent less than two weeks at the University of Hawaii (Hilo) before bailing for Hawaii Pacific University -- at which she stayed only one semester.

Palin represents people who still believe that working with your hands at a hard job, having a bunch of children and having fixed ethical principles means something.

Both Obama and Palin are basketball players by training and instinct. I believe that is why the President and his media whores fear Palin. They know what a realy good Point Guard coming in can do to create offense where there was none when they were are on the bench.

Seriously, all politics aside, that's the dumbest analogy I've seen in awhile.

John Stodder suggested that Palin wouldn't survive an interview with Charles Gibson. I saw the interview with Charles Gibson re the nation of Georgia and I thought she sounded a lot better informed that Mr Gisbon. And, her position was congruent with US national policy at the time and with what then Senator Obama had on his website.

People in Vermont worry about relations with Canada, New York and the dreaded New Hampshire (plus Mass). People in Alaska actually know that Russia is right next door and it is about fishing and overflight and families visiting each other across the Bering (and there is Canada, which makes Alaska like Vermont).

And Norway and Sweden and Finland are probably closer to Alaska than Chicago is to Anchorage.

Palin was a mayor and a governor. She took on the entrenched, corrupt pols in her own party and beat them.

Sarah Palin was the mayor of a town of less than 6000 people. Does that qualify one to be President Of The United States? Her record as Mayor is so-so.

Sarah Palin was governor of a state with a population only slightly larger than the city of Fresno. Does that qualify one to be President Of The United States?

Yes, she took on some corrupt politicians and beat them. For that she does deserve kudo's. But does this qualify one to be the President Of The United States? I mean, come on. It's Alaska, not Chicago or New York or California corruption.

Here is something to ponder. When she quit as governor, one stated reason was that she couldn't do her job due to her inability to fight frivolous lawsuits, and this was quickly driving her family toward bankruptcy. Fair enough. But since leaving office, she hasn't done a thing to change this flaw in the system so her successors wouldn't have to face the same dilemma. Oh, I guess she's too busy on FaceBook and writing her book to bother.

I don't think she's dumb by any means, but she more often than not doesn't seem to bother to study the intricacies of an issue. Like many of Rush's listeners, she simply spews well worn talking points to cover up her lack of knowledge. But this is par for the course in the Rush / Hannity / Beck / Levin wing of the party.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a "Sarah Hater". But I definitely don't think she is much more qualified to be President than Obama was a year ago. And look where that has gotten us, especially fiscally. If she is the only hope of the Republican party, then the GOP is in serious trouble.

Well, she demoted the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner, who quit state government in response. And it had nothing to do with Monegan's failure to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law. The dude was just not being all he could be.

You lefties are a riot. You organize all those fake ethics complains from D.C. straight from Dem party HQ to oust Palin, then you call her a quitter. You people call the victim an oppressor. You remind me of the German Nazis and they did the same thing to the Jews.

And was re-elected with an overwhelming vote. Mitch would have my vote for President as he was the only reason I went to the polls to begin with. I know some have argued, with validity that Mitch lacks star power but I’ll venture a guess that after four years of President Shortpants and his Vice President Dimbulb, enough of the electorate will be going for proven competence instead of a community organizer with track record of voting Present.

When you look at the experience that Eisenhower and Reagan brought to the job, it's hard not to wince at the thought of Obama's and Palin's spare resumes.

But then you look at the experience that LBJ and Nixon brought to the job and you think maybe experience is a double-edged sword.

The one thing Obama has going for him is that he's actually doing the job. Right now there are only four or five people alive who have as much experience at running the oval office as Obama -- the two Bushes, Carter, Clinton, Rahm Emanual.

sonicfrogwrote: Like many of Rush's listeners, she simply spews well worn talking points to cover up her lack of knowledge. But this is par for the course in the Rush / Hannity / Beck / Levin wing of the party.

Well, she demoted the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner, who quit state government in response. And it had nothing to do with Monegan's failure to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law. The dude was just not being all he could be.

This wouldn't have anything to do with the fact the trooper in question was a violent thug who threatened her father, would it?This is old ground, rebutted many times.

I was a big supporter of Palin for VP, but I don't see her being President. Still, you never know. It's a new era. Reagan went from B-list actor to President - albeit with a full Governorship in between.

I'll be really surprised if she even wins the nomination. I see her carving out a new niche for herself - kind of an Oprah/Michael Moore figure that has actually held office.

It's funny how themes follow us throughout our lives. She's had to scramble for money her whole life leading her to take odd roads that earn her disrespect- usually from people who never had to scramble for $$$. The beauty pageant, the five colleges because of scholarships - all $ related.

As then when she finally had two pennies to rub together, she gets hits with so many lawsuits as Gov that once again she's relatively poor on that level and has to go for the $$ directly and immediately.

just because palin ticks off all the right people, and just because she was unfairly treated by the media, and just because she believes in "traditional values" does NOT make her qualified to be president. shes the right wings barack obama, admired for what they look like and what people want them to be rather than for what they are.

get your heads on straight people. we need to counter incompetence and superficial identity nonsense with experience and intelligence. playing the democrats game might win elections but at a fatal cost for the country.

I love watching weird words being masticated into squishy cliches by the chattering classes. Remember "gravitas"? Retromingent was from an earlier era. I think it's a Buckleyism, but I'm not sure.

My all-time favorite, though, is "dysods," which wandered around the New York literati for awhile after John Cheever said it on The Dick Cavett Show (ABC primetime era). Authors presumed it meant something like "a very small cosmic particle". But Cavett himself figured out that, in fact, Cheever said "dice odds".

“Ah well! It means much the same thing,” said the Duchess, digging her sharp little chin into Alice’s shoulder as she added, “and the moral of THAT is –‘Take care of the sense, and the sounds will take care of themselves.” --Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.

Ethics complaints motivated most of the lawsuits. Troopergate, trying to keep her private email confidential even though she used it official business, and using state resources to support political campaigns formed the bulk of the allegations.

Reagan went from B-list actor to President - albeit with a full Governorship in between.

Reagan got involved in politics prior to his running for, and serving out, not one, but two, FULL terms as governor of California. He tried for, but lost out, on the nomination for the presidency twice before his success in 1980.

I don't find the comparison all that apt.

Also, I still maintain that Reagan was not, and would not now be, a social conservative in the sense that term is used now.

I think, for example, it's valid to suggest that he actually bucked the forces contemporary to his times which eventually gave birth to current social conservatives (see, for example, his response to Prop 6, which he not only opposed, but outright supported the defeat of which), which I think was fairly risky at the time.

Daubiere...Let me get this straight. The only goal is to nominate the best qualified President, unlike when the Repubbies nominated a movie actor from California whose only skill was his character and Electability. If She is not elected, then you don't have a learner as President. If she is elected, then we get our country back but are not lead by an experienced President. That is an easy choice for me.

The ethics complaints were a load of crap and everyone who has paid attention knows it.

It's the shotgun approach to destroying someone. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick; Fair minded people will believe where there is that much smoke there surely must be a fire. It was vile, nasty, and says nothing good about the Democratic Party that perpetrated it.

That being said, I agree with Madison, her quitting does not look good, and subtracts from her suitability for President. If you're going to be the big dog, you have to be able to take the hits.

I concur with daubiere and sonicfrog. I find the sycophancy toward Palin very similar to, and every bit as misguided as, that toward Obama.

All I hear from Palin are empty platitudes. I've heard almost no substantive criticism of Obama from her. Where's an alternate health proposal? How about her views on Afghanistan with clear statements about policy? What are her specific views and criticisms on the proposals for the upcoming Copenhagen conference on climate?

"But since leaving office, she hasn't done a thing to change this flaw in the system so her successors wouldn't have to face the same dilemma."

I honestly don't see the point of this particular criticism because I don't see how, as the focus of those law suits, she could possibly advocate to change the system.

"Ethics complaints motivated most of the lawsuits. Troopergate, trying to keep her private email confidential even though she used it official business, and using state resources to support political campaigns formed the bulk of the allegations."

Using state resources was such things as... speaking to a reporter in her office, "What are you doing now that the election is over, Governor?" or a picture with a fish taken the year before as a promotional for the salmon fishing industry... because it was a picture... of her... with a fish. Which were all found to be bogus charges anyway because they all defy common sense.

The only one with any teeth at all, and that made the situation impossible, was the one that said she could not have a legal defense fund.

Ronald Reagan, who by the way was our only divorced president, was also once a democrat who supposedly endorsed two Republican candidates before he finally changed parties.

Well in fairness, Reagan was a Democrat at a time when Democrats actually believed in the excellence and uniqueness of the US. I doubt very much that Truman or JFK would look fondly on thier party today or even be welcomed in it.

I'm struck by the feeling of deja vu here. Didn't we have this conversation in August 2008 just after Palin was announced as the VP candidate? And didn't most of the criticism focus on her qualifications for president (even though she was a VP candidate) instead of Obama's qualifications for the top job? This comment thread seems awfully like a rerun.

I've always thought the question was backwards, anyway; it should have been, "what qualification test for Palin can we design that Obama will pass?" The only things I thought were really offered were a credentialism theory ("look at where his degrees are from!") and the fact that he was running a good campaign. Now that he's in office, I think it's arguable that both of those rationales don't hold much water, hence Limbaugh's comments. And yet people still want to make the conversation about Palin (especially to take potshots at her.) Peculiar

Joe wrote: I've heard almost no substantive criticism of Obama from her. Where's an alternate health proposal? How about her views on Afghanistan with clear statements about policy? What are her specific views and criticisms on the proposals for the upcoming Copenhagen conference on climate?

a. Palin is not running for any office. Why would she be expected to put forth views on these subjects?

b. Obama is President and we still can't get straight answers from him on these three subjects so, how can she, or we, criticize him substantively for anything other than dissembling and dithering? He has no substance.

That's so clever. And Andrew Sullivan will continue to speculate on who's filling it for some time to come.

Palin is more a Ross Perot type than anything. She's got the knack for generating sound bytes and stirring up a crowd, but she's got no staying power.

"All I hear from Palin are empty platitudes. I've heard almost no substantive criticism of Obama from her. Where's an alternate health proposal? How about her views on Afghanistan with clear statements about policy? What are her specific views and criticisms on the proposals for the upcoming Copenhagen conference on climate?"

@Joe: It's fascinating that you're such an astute student of Palin's speeches that you can authoritatively assert that she has no articulated positions. You must be a masochist.

What's even sillier: YOU can't answer any of the same questions about Obama.

He has no health care plan; he's just waiting for Congress to throw something on his desk.

Clear statement on Afghanistan policy? Obama is a deer in the headlights. He has no clear position.

Copenhagen? Who cares?

You're playing the Charlie Gibson game with what you imagine Palin to be, and that's just so busted.

There are a lot of alternate proposals for health care out there. They are all described as "anti health care reform" because if you're not *for* whatever couple thousands pages that the Congress is tossing together you are "anti health care reform."

Exibit #1 is the Whole Foods guy who got slammed (and picketed) for being "anti health care reform" on account of presenting his proposal for health care reform to the public. Because having your own ideas for health care reform *is* being anti health care reform.

This isn't difficult. Get with the program.

(I don't want Palin to "reform" health care. I don't want government to take over that segment of our economy... and next time I buy a car it will probably be a Ford.)

He has no health care plan; he's just waiting for Congress to throw something on his desk.

Yes, Obama is focusing on the goal instead of pride of authorship. Obama doesn't want to deal health care another twenty-year setback like the Hillarycare plan handed down from Mt. Olympus, which Congress refused to swallow.

Actually, I do care about that, no matter who's running for office at the national level, of whatever party. I'd specifically like to know if he or she has followed the development of the draft framework, with specific reference to those parts of it which can be interpreted as threatening national sovereignty.

fls speaks as though there is evidence somewhere on the planet that "the one" could even begin to author such a measure. Or, taking a giant leap of faith and assuming his (Obama's) competence, that he would be willing to take responsibility for what he had authored. ROTFL

FLS--I agree with your 2:03--I think Obama learned the lesson of Hillary and Planet Ira health care--both of whom consistently dissed the committee chairs associated with Health care in both the house and senate. The difficulty for Mr Obama it seems to me, that having chosen to let the congress draft it, he is stuck trying to articulate very inchoate health care proposals that are floating around in the House and Senate--not to mention what finally may emerge if this monstrosity ever goes to conference.

By letting congress draft the legislation, he is left trying to articulate something (other than vague goals) that isnt even reality yet; thus he ends up looking a bit inarticulate. And I suspect his limited time in the Senate does not give him a firm grasp of arcane legislative processes. Time will tell.

Madison Man--apologies for using your name inadvertently in the deleted post.

Palin could earn a PhD in physics, write an award winning novel (under a pseudonym, of course), learn to plan concert piano, sing with the Metropolitan Opera, acquire fluency in six languages including two African dialects, earn her license to pilot a jet, work two years in a refugee camp, know the name of every country on the planet and their leaders by first and last names and...she...could...not...survive...the media and lefty hatred. Unless, she had an extra late term abortion on Trig which would be the one qualifying factor that might make it possible for her to be accepted where it counts.

Roger...We all know that Ronnie Raygun was Governor of California, but I felt that I had to consider Governorships were not relevant credentials for President. Sarah Palin will sure be relieved to find out that she is just like Reagan after all.

Since, as I am given to understand, Christie is a RINO and also not a conservative, does it really matter if Corzine wins? One could say that Acorn-affiliates, if indeed they are active in fraud, will be doing the conservative movement a favor in this instance.

Why the assumption that because I criticize Palin, I support Obama? I think both are morons--idiot savants if you will--upon whom people project their political fantasies.

(Obama never articulated a clear strategy and position on anything. Those to the right (and even left) criticized him for this and still do. So why the hell aren't conservatives doing EXACTLY the same thing with Palin?)

The only thing, in the event of a Corzine win, it could be "spun" that the unlikely bedfellows of Acorn affiliates and Chris Daggett in effect if not by design, worked cooperatively to defeat the evil Christie. Rather unfortunate, don't you think?

***

Meanwhile, it's being reported that Sarah Palin has hinted on her Facebook page which way she thinks the NJ election ought to go ...

Despite what candidate Chris Daggett is claiming, I have never contacted him or his campaign. I have never asked him to drop out of the NJ Governor’s race. Now, if a politician is going to play loose with facts like this, the electorate needs to know it.

So, to the good people of New Jersey, please know that Daggett’s claims are false. I’ve never even suggested he should drop out of the race. But, come to think of it…

Yours and the other wing nuts argument that it's purely the "media" that drives the Sarah Palin is really a dolt theory is just plain bullshit.

*A new poll from Gallup reveals that Sarah Palin's approval rating has plummeted to an all-time low, too.

According to the survey, the former vice presidential candidate maintains a 40% favorability rating, the lowest it has been since she emerged as a national political figure at last year's Republican convention

Posting drivel via FaceBook (how cool is that?) isn't quite the same as having to stand in front of a camera and answer questions in an intelligent manner.

"Palin could earn a PhD in physics, write an award winning novel (under a pseudonym, of course), learn to plan concert piano, sing with the Metropolitan Opera, acquire fluency in six languages including two African dialects, earn her license to pilot a jet, work two years in a refugee camp, know the name of every country on the planet and their leaders by first and last names and...she...could...not...survive...the media and lefty hatred."

Ahhhh yes, the argument by counterfactual.

But it's even worse than you say! there is an alternate reality where Sarah Palin saved orphan puppies from a burning building. . . and the lefties STILL hate her!

Joe said..."Jeremy, getting a degree in law is pathetically easy and getting elected has precious little to do with education, intelligence or capability to perform in office."

Right.

Graduating from Harvard at the top of your class is "pathetically easy," probably why so many here have taken advantage of that easy path to success.

And saying that Obama may be "really, really smart, but he hasn't displayed any of that" is rather lame, considering he's recently been elected to the highest political office in your own country...so it appears the American people believe he's smart enough to be our President.

And finally, blathering on about how he is really just "someone who can memorize stuff" (that's your take on President Obama? He's good at memorizing "stuff?"), gives me a pretty good idea of your own intellect.

"Palin could earn a PhD in physics, write an award winning novel (under a pseudonym, of course), learn to play concert piano, sing with the Metropolitan Opera, acquire fluency in six languages including two African dialects, earn her license to pilot a jet, work two years in a refugee camp, know the name of every country on the planet and their leaders by first and last names

If she did all this and was black, she'd be Condi Rice and the lefties would still call her stupid and draw Aunt Jemima cartoons deriding her.

What was Obama's graduation rank from Harvard Law? Do we know? Certainly this is available information.

Also, he wrote a thesis at some point. The only thesis we've seen was a hoax. Why can't we read his thesis? The whole point of them is to add to scholarship, and secret doesn't do that.

In any case... people who are overly impressed by other people's "smarts" generally are trying to claim intellectual status on someone elses coat-tails. Smart by association. Which means, of course, that they aren't independently smart at all.

I dont recall any Aunt Jemima cartoon, but is a sampling of what certainly would appear to a reasonable person to be a racist:http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2004/11/20/racist-cartoons-of-condoleezza-rice/

In fact the idea for the cartoon was suggested to me by a friend who is African-American. It wasn’t racist. Nor am I. I have been doing this for nearly thirty years, and any review of my work will prove that no racism attaches. Further, I am a decorated Vietnam veteran who voted for Nixon once, GHW Bush twice and even for Bob Dole. So keep your labels.

Nothing racist about it at all. Just the standard lies told by a political operative, out of her depth, who happens to be African-American. Whenever this administration is in trouble they send out Condi Rice because the press, which is mostly white and male, gives her a far easier treatment than they would a white male.

I don't think Palin is the best we can find for president, but it's telling that so many people compare her to Obama. She was running for vice president yet most of the personal and qualifications comparisons were between him and her, rather than with McCain. That his supporters would do this, admits his lack of qualification and that compared to McCain's life he has only lived a child's.

Those who voted for Obama, voted for a pig in poke. You knew nothing that you needed to know except for his associations, which he could not hide and should have been most informing. Unless you were convinced that McCain was evil or at least a for-sure disaster, you voted irresponsibly. I disliked McCain's politics immensely, but if you were deciding to elect the commander of a military unit or a defender of the greatest free market power in history, voting for Obama was stupid. Despite your attempts to justify it, which I have read, it was really just closing your eyes and hoping for the best. Irresponsible.

The demand that she make decisions with the same clarity and with the same detail as Obama ought to be making decisions about policy is ridiculous. For one thing, he's got access to the intelligence and all the reports, now. And also at this point, it's his job to decide.

He's the decider.

But saying that somehow she hasn't let it be known what her priorities are, policy wise, isn't supportable. She went to Hong Kong to push jobs for Alaska and development for Alaska. That's one thing that's pretty clear. Her views on energy development and reducing dependency on overseas sources is pretty clear. She's demonstrated that she does not "believe in" imposing christian beliefs through legistlation. She's demonstrated that she will go after and seek prosecution of corruption in government and in her own party. She's demonstrated that she can and will lead in getting international projects done. She has demonstrated the willingness to tell "big oil" who is the boss, and won.

A person can say this is small cheese compared to those in charge of larger populations or that she's not in a "decider" position now and can't *do* anything.

bago-wind said..."I don't think Palin is the best we can find for president, but it's telling that so many people compare her to Obama."

The ONLY people who compare Princess Sarah to President Obama are the wing nuts who frequent sites like this.

As I said before: Democrats will PAY to have her run.

She's nothing more than a white trash dolt who is taking advantage of the spotlight McCain provided (and boy you can bet your ass he wishes he hadn't) to stuff as much dough into her pockets as she can.

Oh, and she's also a quitter...and that should play well in any future election.

You know the sort... a small little person who attaches himself to someone big and important and smart. He's not claiming that *he* is smart because *he* went to Harvard, after all. We're dumb... not because we didn't go to Harvard but because we don't care. He *cares*. Because being next to a big guy makes a little guy feel big.

(There is also the element of needing to justify giving your life over to other people to take care of you that logically must result in an over-estimation of the infallible brilliance and wisdom of those deemed qualified to own us all... which is sort of a "toady" mentality as well, isn't it.)

Do you not find it passingly odd that a fellow who has written two autobiographies before his 48th birthday would be so self effacing as to have sequestered his grades, his papers and his SAT scores? Not to be a conspiracy theorist but I consider those missing academic pieces rather strange. Lefties were always telling us how stupid GWB was and didn't pause even after it was found that his grades were about the same as Gore's and better than Kerry's. Could our president be so modest as to not want us to know that he is extra certifiably smart?

Invisible Man said... Sarah Palin's head is on straight. That is OVERWHELMINGLY the most important thing to look for in a president. So no, no contradiction detected at all.

She is having a public feud with a dumb jock who just dropped out of high school a year ago. I'm guessing that your description of having a head on straight involves idealogy and not average intelligence.

A fine post!

Keep in mind that Palin is not the only one who supporters credit with "having their heads on straight", dishing out the truth! - When in actuality, their lives show they don't really have "their heads on straight" in day to day matters.

Supporters of John Edwards claimed his "Two Americas" speech and loquacious charisma showed just how straight on he was in his head.

Though in a battle of wits, between Palin and a jock dropout -I actually give a slight edge to her over Levi Johnson.

The same people who dragged his extended family into the spot-light in order to destroy Palin are going to keep him in the spotlight at least a little longer before discarding him and she *will* be asked about it.

synova: In my book, Palin's character is too flawed to make her Presidential material. Her speech at the GOP convention showed her to be mean. Letting Levi-free Johnson get to her shows her to be petty. Trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired -- 1. for the second time, after he was disciplined, and 2. using her power as head of the Executive Branch -- shows her to be vindictive.* She's the type of person I try to avoid. America can do better.

*Her dad's calling Trooper Wooten out for putting out of its misery the wolf the dad shot but did not kill, showed that pettiness and vindictiveness runs in the Heath family.

Do you just not believe that she was being deliberately bankrupted and legally barred from raising any funds to pay those legal bills and that she could have just gone on to do governor stuff un-harassed? Her choice?

Or do you believe that she was being deliberately bankrupted and legally barred from raising any funds to pay those legal bills and that she would have continued to be harassed but... she should have stuck it out anyway?

Michael said..."Do you not find it passingly odd that a fellow who has written two autobiographies before his 48th birthday would be so self effacing as to have sequestered his grades, his papers and his SAT scores?"

I'm not aware of his hiding anything.

And what "papers" are you talking about The Chicago Trib perhaps.

*Oh, and do you have ANY of the previous five President's SAT's handy?

We'll be hearing that one for a while...she doesn't stumble on new things very often.

And for anybody here to criticize or whine about anything they consider a form of sycophancy is really a hoot...considering the slobbering rhetoric (and all out sucking) relating to Queen Ann that is heard every day.

I don't see her as vindictive. The crap with Levi "got to her" and this is indicative of pettiness? I think Obama is petty far beyond that and about issues that aren't directly impacting his children or his family. I mean, seriously, some of the crap he pulled during the campaign, pigs in lipstick or the "likable enough" Hillary Clinton? It's not like someone was going after his children.

Palin *does* get upset when her family is involved. Some people find that understandable and not indicative of a general flaw.

She didn't even fire that one fellow who was back-stabbing her and making promises about funding contrary to her agenda as governor. If she was vindictive or mean, she certainly had *cause* to show him the door. She offered him a job where he couldn't screw up her budget instead.

Thanks so very much to Jeremy and his generous offer of financial support for Sarah Palin's campaign for the nomination. I feel encouraged. Has this latest Rogue's Thread hit 200 yet? These are the days that try liberal's souls.They do have souls; although many a faustian bargain seems to have been made by the liberals we hear from on this Blog.

Henry said... When you look at the experience that Eisenhower and Reagan brought to the job, it's hard not to wince at the thought of Obama's and Palin's spare resumes.

But then you look at the experience that LBJ and Nixon brought to the job and you think maybe experience is a double-edged sword.

All 4 guys mentioned had vast executive experience and high intelligence. All were consequential Presidents seemed to be able to get things done. Who had a huge affirming elections after voters who saw them in office - liked what they saw. 3 had landslide victories.

Now Nixon is regarded as the most consequential of all since FDR. The guy who fixed the most things, and got it done with a coalition of conservatives and moderates. It is fashionable for older boomers to rail at the man because that is what they grew up on - Nixon's demonization by Leftist intelligensia, Jewish-run media, and the "Manhattan influencers".

But Nixon still holds a remarkable record. More voters voted for Nixon in his runs for office than any American before or since. Even FDR.

And behind those 4, you also had what people see as the mostly successful Presidencies of Truman, GH Bush, Bill Clinton, and JFK. All who had significant military officering or other executive leadership experience. Who were also well travelled, tested repeatedly in life, and well educated smart guys.

Palin, Obama, even McCain (1 year of executive experience as a Navy Wing Commander) don't match up to any of them.

They don't seem to make Presidential candidates like they used to.We are in the age of slick talkers, and the age of quasi-Buchananite figures who like Pat, vault to the head of "Movements" with no real background, learning, readiness to be President. Think Edwards, Palin, Sharpton, Jesse, Kuchinich, Nader, Keyes....

tC-4... Good comment until you throw in the "Jewish run media" as Nixon's enemy. As I recall The Washington Post and the Deep Throat guy from the FBI, and the Nixon aides who decided not to perjure themselves were decidedly not Jews.The greatest Nixon greatest success was his ordering re-supply of Israel and a Def-Con 1 response to the Soviet threats for it when Israel had only 24 hours of ammunition left and no other friends on earth during the early losing days of the Yom Kippur war of 1973 when Israel had been surprise attacked from three sides. I am therefore encouraged to learn that Nixon is a hero to you.

I support Palin's decision to bail on the governorship. The alternative was to hold a target for democrats to throw at. Never, never do what your enemies expect you to do. She completely let the air out of her enemies balloon. The people of Alaska are fine with the Lieut.Gov. and he can proceed with his duties without all the drama.

If bailing on an office is a problem why do we accept with little grumbling the office holders that leave to seek higher office? If she had resigned during her vice-presidential campaign nobody would have said a word!

"But since leaving office, she hasn't done a thing to change this flaw in the system so her successors wouldn't have to face the same dilemma."

Synova replied:

I honestly don't see the point of this particular criticism because I don't see how, as the focus of those law suits, she could possibly advocate to change the system.

All but one of the lawsuits are gone, dismissed. As someone who not only was a victim of these lawsuits, but someone who knows the ins-and-outs of the system, Palin would be the ultimate advocate for changing the laws in Alaska that prohibit an office holder from taking private funds earmarked expressly toward a legal defense fund. If this was such a burden on her, why would she not be an active participant in changing it...

Unless it wasn't as devastating as she claimed. Unless now that it doesn't affect her, it doesn't matter anymore.